Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:57:11 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> To: "pav@FreeBSD.org" <pav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "demon@FreeBSD.org" <demon@FreeBSD.org>, "lioux@FreeBSD.org" <lioux@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] A trivial change for DESKTOP_ENTRIES (take 2) Message-ID: <4E1F2DF7.3080700@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <1310666060.23182.1.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <201107121826.00020.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <201107131857.36772.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <4E1E9C79.6080105@FreeBSD.org> <4E1F200D.1080002@missouri.edu> <1310666060.23182.1.camel@hood.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07/14/2011 12:54 PM, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Stephen Montgomery-Smith píše v čt 14. 07. 2011 v 11:57 -0500: > >> entry. I assume that the filename of the desktop entry is unimportant, > > The filename of desktop entry should be 100% inconsequential, and our > only care should be not have two ports installing same file. > >> and is used only internally by Gnome or whatever. > > Sounds like a bug to me. This means I am still not understanding it fully then. >> But maybe it would have been better to have had one more entry in >> DESKTOP_ENTRIES that was the actual filename of the desktop entry. > > Yes, but is it worth the effort? Note you'll have to introduce it > somehow not to break existing ports. I agree. It is a lot of work.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E1F2DF7.3080700>